This blog on Texas education contains posts on accountability, testing, K-12 education, postsecondary educational attainment, bilingual education, immigration, school finance, environmental issues, and Ethnic Studies at the state and national levels. It addresses politics in Texas. It also represents my digital footprint, of life and career, as a community-engaged scholar in Texas.
I am happy to learn about vlogger, Lilly Sing, whose body of work includes her powerful and timely conversations, including this one with Nikhil Taneja on How to Be a 'Real' Man. It’s a refreshingly honest deep dive into the weight of patriarchy—not just as a system that oppresses women and gender-diverse individuals, but as one that also harms men by stifling their emotional expression and humanity.
Taneja, a writer, producer, and passionate mental health advocate, speaks with raw vulnerability about the crushing expectations of traditional gender roles and how they have shaped—and often warped—his understanding of self.
What stands out is how the episode reframes masculinity not as something fixed or biologically determined, but as a performance enforced through generations of social conditioning. Taneja reflects on how boys are taught to “man up,” to suppress fear, tenderness, and grief—lessons that often calcify into emotional repression. The courage it takes to unlearn this is not trivial. He articulates, with great sensitivity, the very real fear that comes with opening up: fear of being judged, dismissed, or worse, of facing social or even physical retaliation. The vulnerability of which he speaks is not only compelling—it’s transformative.
This episode also serves as a potent counter-narrative to the hypermasculine “bro culture” that continues to dominate media, politics, and everyday life. Such culture glorifies aggression, domination, and emotional detachment, perpetuating a narrow and ultimately destructive vision of what it means to be a man. In contrast, Singh and Taneja offer a liberatory path—one grounded in empathy, critical self-reflection, and emotional truth-telling.
This isn’t just about redefining masculinity; it’s about dismantling the toxic legacies we inherit and forging space for healing. Enough with the narrow prescriptions and hidden rules of culture that are so confining to all. Whether rooted in patriarchy, colonialism, or caste-based expectations, these scripts rob us of our fullness. This conversation is a call to dismantle them—for everyone’s sake. It reminds us that true strength lies not in emotional stoicism but in the radical act of being real—of being human.
-Angela Valenzuela
This episode is for every man who’s ever been told to “man up.”I sat down with writer and mental health advocate Nikhil Taneja to talk about something we don’t talk about enough: how the patriarchy is hurting men too!
From emotional repression to performative masculinity, we unpack how outdated ideas of manhood are leaving so many men feeling lost, disconnected, and alone... and what real strength and healing actually look like.
We cover:
-Why vulnerability is a superpower
-What healthy masculinity really looks like
-How pop culture has failed our boys
-And why men need safe spaces just as much as women do
Share this conversation with every boy and man you care about!
This episode of Shame Less with Lilly Singh is presented by my charity, Unicorn Island Fund. Follow us for BTS and exclusive snippets that won’t be posted anywhere else: / unicornisland
Follow Nikhil: https://www.instagram.com/tanejamainh...
Follow Lilly: / lilly
Power in Numbers, Silence in Maps: A Mid-Decade Redistricting Fight for Racial Justice in Texas
by
Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
The Houston hearing on redistricting was especially animated—you can listen to it here. The community has spoken. To get a sense of perspective, here is the demographic breakdown that typically informs redistricting—albeit not mid-decade redistricting decisions, which makes the current moment an alarming outlier. This deviation is directly attributable to Donald Trump, who explicitly called on Texas lawmakers to redraw maps in his favor by securing more white, Republican-leaning seats in Congress.
The goal? To tip the fragile partisan balance, so that Donald Trump can shield himself from political accountability, and entrench minority rule in a state whose population growth has been overwhelmingly driven by communities of color. In essence, this maneuver seeks to weaponize redistricting—not as a reflection of demographic reality—but as a tool for partisan and racial power preservation.
As I describe in an earlier post, these are sin vergüenza, or shameless, politics. Heck yeah, people are angry.
Texas gained 4 million new residents between 2010 and 2020—the largest numerical increase of any U.S. state during that decade. Here's the racial and ethnic breakdown of that growth:
1.98 million were Latino or Hispanic
613,092 were Asian American
550,887 were Black
187,252 were white (non-Hispanic)
In other words, over 95% of the state’s growth came from communities of color. Latinos alone accounted for nearly half of that increase, while Black and Asian American populations also grew substantially. In stark contrast, white (non-Hispanic) Texans made up fewer than 1 in 20 of the new residents. These numbers reveal a profound demographic transformation: the population growth that earned Texas new congressional seats and political clout was overwhelmingly driven by people of color.
Yet despite this reality, current redistricting efforts—particularly this mid-decade attempt—continue to sideline the very communities responsible for the state’s expansion. Partisan gerrymandering tactics like packing voters of color into a limited number of districts or cracking them across many remain prevalent, effectively diluting their political voice.
When district lines are drawn in ways that suppress representation rather than reflect it, the process becomes not just politically manipulative—it becomes racially discriminatory. Such actions fundamentally violate the principles of democratic fairness and challenge both the spirit and the letter of the law of the Voting Rights Act.
Even more concerning is the continued overrepresentation of white Texans in political power structures. Although they accounted for less than 5% of the state’s growth, redistricting proposals often seek to preserve or expand white-majority and Republican-leaning districts.
This creates a deep misalignment between the population and its political representation, reinforcing long-standing patterns of racial exclusion. In doing so, redistricting becomes a tool not for fair governance, but for protecting the power of a shrinking demographic at the expense of an increasingly diverse majority.
At the end of the day, we must get these folks who are protecting their own incumbencies and colluding with Trump to tip the scales in Congress—out of power. This is why these hearings—and our voices—matter.
In 2021, Texas gained two new congressional seats due to explosive population growth—95% of which came from Latino, Black, and Asian American communities. But instead of drawing maps that reflected this demographic reality, the Republican-controlled Legislature crafted district lines that preserved incumbent power and reinforced the dominance of conservative white voters, particularly in urban hubs like Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.
As Texas Observer journalist Justin Miller reports, those maps—already facing legal challenges for racial gerrymandering—are now being reopened in an extraordinary mid-decade redistricting push, orchestrated under pressure from Donald Trump. Governor Greg Abbott has convened a special session citing a dubious Department of Justice letter as justification, but legal experts argue this is little more than a convenient excuse to give Republicans additional congressional seats ahead of the 2026 elections.
As Miller highlights through his interview with redistricting expert Michael Li, this maneuver is both legally questionable and politically unprecedented. To prove racial gerrymandering, one must show that race predominated in the drawing of district lines. Yet Texas Republicans have long claimed that race played no role in crafting their 2021 maps—only partisanship. If that’s the case, there should be no constitutional need to redraw them.
The fact that they are now attempting to redo their own map—a map they previously defended—lays bare the real motive: a naked bid for political advantage. In a state where communities of color have fueled nearly all population growth, redrawing districts to suppress their representation is not just aggressive; it’s anti-democratic.
As Miller makes clear, this is a power grab dressed in legal pretense, with deeply troubling implications for racial equity and representative government in Texas.
In 2021, the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature redrew the state’s political maps that determine the lines of power in the Texas House, the Texas Senate, and the representatives in U.S. Congress. Thanks to a decade’s worth of population growth fueled by Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, Texas gained two new congressional seats—bringing the state’s total to 38, second only to California.
From a partisan perspective, the maps were primarily about incumbent protection—one new seat went to Republicans in the Houston area, and one went to Democrats in Austin, while the rest of the existing seats were all made either redder or bluer
From the perspective of racial representation, it was a further continuation of the Texas tradition of maximizing the power of conservative Anglo voters at the expense of communities of color—especially in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth.
Timing-wise, that re-mapping was done as it typically is: after the decennial federal census. Yet, just four years later, Republicans are—upon receiving orders from their supreme leader President Donald Trump—coming back to Austin for a second bite at the gerrymandering apple as Team MAGA hopes to shore up its razor-thin majority in the U.S. House in 2026.
Governor Greg Abbott has put redistricting on his call for the current special legislative session, which convened Monday, citing the need to address constitutional concerns around a few specific racially gerrymandered congressional districts in Houston and DFW (something Trump’s Department of Justice quite conveniently chose to criticize and about which the Texas GOP has never before cared).
There are reports that Republicans will try to redraw as many as five currently Democratic districts—from South Texas and Houston to Dallas and possibly Austin—to favor the GOP to flip in the upcoming midterms.
That’s a tall task and a politically dicey maneuver—and one we saw 20 years ago. The Texas Observer spoke with Michael Li, a Texas native and longtime redistricting expert at the Brennan Center, about Tom Delay, dummymanders, and the long history of racial gerrymandering in the state.
TO: Texas was sued in 2021 for violating the Voting Rights Act by racially gerrymandering its new maps. Can you give a brief overview of what’s transpired since then?
The trial on the challenges to the 2021 map just concluded in June. … The briefing on that will continue into the fall and at some point in the coming months the court will rule. But of course, in the interim, some of those claims could be mooted out with respect to the congressional maps. So the [state] legislative map claims could still go on, but the congressional could become moot if the state draws new maps. So it’s this sort of bizarro world—this is the world without Section 5 of the [Voting Rights Act], where we had preclearance.
And we’re at the point now in 2025 where the state’s maps have kind of been under litigation for decades now.
Well, every map since the 1970s has been challenged or redrawn in part because they were racially discriminatory or violated the Voting Rights Act. This is nothing new for Texas. Whether Democrats drew the maps or Republicans drew the maps, Texas has struggled for decades to draw maps that fairly represented communities of color.
And in this decade, the map, I think to most objective observers, underrepresents communities of color—who are 95 percent of the population growth [of the] last decade. So you already under-represent those communities, and by redrawing this map you could make a bad map even worse, as hard as that is to believe.
So there were rumblings over the past month of the Trump administration pressuring Republicans in Texas to redraw the maps again, to expand their numbers in the U.S. House. Obviously that has now become a concrete thing. But, you know, we saw this DOJ letter that, right before Abbott put out his special session agenda, specifically lists racially gerrymandered districts in Houston and the DFW area that the state needs to correct. What do you make of that? Was this just a blatant way to create a pretext for Texas Republicans to open up the maps again?
Well, the letter feels very pretexual. It’s hard to make sense of the letter from a legal perspective. Just because you have districts with a lot of minorities and different minority groups doesn’t make it a racial gerrymander. What you have to do for a racial gerrymander is that race has to dominate in how you decided to draw the map. Texas has insisted throughout the [El Paso] litigation that it couldn’t be a racial gerrymander because they didn’t consider race. Race could not predominate if you didn’t consider it.
The letter doesn’t make any sense legally, it doesn’t actually make sense factually, and the fact that the state is using that letter to reopen up the map-drawing process I think is very pretextual.
Because if it was true that, as the state has claimed, there was no racial component to the drawing of the maps, then they could ignore the letter and say “Sue us.”
Right, and in fact Ken Paxton’s office even responded to the letter saying, “No, no, no, we didn’t consider race at all. We did this for partisanship.” Well, that’s fine. If you did it for partisan gerrymandering and you didn’t consider race at all, there is no constitutional problem with these districts. But the fact that Governor Abbott has said [in his special session call], we need to have constitutionally drawn maps—certainly their grasping onto the letter feels like a convenient excuse to do something that [they] already wanted to do for other reasons.
Advertisement
We’re hearing that Republicans want to add as many as five more districts, but that does not necessarily mean that they’re going to target the ones that are named in the DOJ letter. It gets messy very quickly, there’s all these cascading effects with changing lines and stuff, but they can kind of just open up the maps entirely and just start changing everything.
Yeah,I don’t think they’re bound by those districts alone.If you actually redraw the districts that are named in the letter, that’s just buying like a Texas-sized legal fight. You’re just inviting the argument that you’re intentionally discriminating against communities of color because these are in many cases long-standing districts that have been represented by Black and Latino members.
And it’s worth mentioning that, last decade, Texas was found by a three-judge panel in Washington [to have] intentionally discriminated when it drew its maps. The court in the preclearance case said, like, there’s more evidence of intention to discriminate than we have room or need to discuss. So there’s a lot of danger in attacking these districts.
Reportshave said the GOP’s tentative plan to draw new Republican seats would be to target districts in South Texas, Henry Cuellar’s district and Vicente Gonzalez’s, Julie Johnson’s district in the Dallas area. The Houston area, and potentially in Austin. In terms of just the partisan gerrymandering aspect of this, does that strike you as especially aggressive?
From both a partisan perspective and a racial perspective, many of those are majority non-white districts—with the exception of Lloyd Doggett’s district in Austin. So you’re talking about targeting the political power of communities of color in a pretty aggressive way. But it’s also aggressive politically. Republicans in Texas already hold two-thirds of the congressional seats. If they add another five, they end up with 80 percent of the seats—in a state where they get around 55-56 percent of the vote at best.
This has “dummymander” written all over it. And again, last decade is a cautionary tale. [Republicans] drew the maps very aggressively last decade and it looked pretty good for them. And then [in 2018] they lost the Dallas seat that Colin Allred won and the Houston seat that Lizzie Fletcher won, and they almost lost a bunch of seats around the Austin area. Texas is growing so fast, it’s changing so fast, it’s becoming more diverse so fast. So it’s really hard to predict what the future electorate of Texas looks like. Because when you gerrymander, you’re making a bet that you know what the politics of a place are going to be.
And in many places, that’s true because, you know, they’re not changing that much. In Texas, it’s just the opposite of that. You can easily be too smart for your own good..
Right. And in 2021 with the current set of maps the consensus was it was a Republican-favored map where they expanded their numbers a bit but it was fairly tempered compared to past maps and was more about protecting the current status quo for incumbents. And then they saw 2022 and 2024 where Republicans won at big levels statewide and saw specific gains in South Texas in the Valley and some backsliding in the suburbs like Fort Bend and Collin counties. So it feels like they’re kind of looking back and being like, “Damn, we should have been more aggressive.” And they’re at risk of short-term political gain right now based on potentially over-reading or over-interpreting what could be some electoral aberrations.
Yeah, that’s absolutely right. If you talked to a lot of Democrats after 2018, they thought they knew what the future of the state was going to look like. They were wrong.
They were pretty confident that they were going to flip the Texas House in 2020. And that didn’t happen.
Right, and 2022 and 2024 were certainly good for Republicans, but things have changed. One being Joe Biden is no longer President and Donald trump is. And if you were trying to be in a good position for the rest of the decade, you might not want to be so aggressive.
But maybe they’re thinking this will be good enough for 2026 and we may lose seats in ’28 or ’30, but oh well. That is the world that the Supreme Court left us in because they said: partisan gerrymandering, we’re not gonna police it.
So the last time, infamously, that something like this happened was back in was in 2003 with Tom Delay in the mid-decade redistricting where they came to Austin and redid the congressional maps with explicit intentions of packing and cracking Democratic districts, really gutting the entire base of the existing conservative rural Democratic members, and also breaking up Austin into seven different pieces or whatever. What do you see as key similarities and differences with the situation now?
A key difference is when they redrew the maps in the 2000s, it was to replace a court-drawn map. The Legislature had deadlocked in 2001 because the Democrats still controlled the Texas House and they couldn’t agree on a map and so a court drew a map. And the court took a conservative approach in terms of not making a lot of changes based on the 1991 maps. … And the 1991 map was a fairly infamous and aggressive Democratic gerrymander, because Democrats controlled the process in 1991, and so by the early 2000s Republicans were winning the majority of the state vote but Democrats still controlled a majority of congressional seats. Republicans thought well that seems unfair. … Whether you agree with how aggressive they were or not, they did sort of have a case. This decade it’s different right, because Republicans drew this map. They got what they wanted and now they’re redrawing it. I can’t think of another example in the country where a party redraws the map that it drew. … That’s really unprecedented.
And also, going back to the point, if you accept the premise of the 2000s that seat share and vote share should kind of be alike, well Republicans have 67 percent of the seats. They don’t win 67 percent of the vote—and they certainly don’t win 80 percent. If you accept the arguments from the Tom Delay cycle, well gosh you actually should have more Democratic seats.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
On June 4th, longtime Education Austin President Ken Zarifis was critically injured in a devastating car accident that sent him to the Emergency Room in critical condition. He has since undergone reconstructive surgery to the right side of his face and body and remains in the ICU, where he is under close care by nurses and doctors. His recovery will be long and arduous, involving additional surgeries, physical therapy, and intensive rehabilitation.
Ken has been a tireless advocate for Austin’s public schools, teachers, and students for decades. From organizing against the IDEA charter school takeover in East Austin to helping flip the AISD school board in 2012, Ken’s leadership has demonstrated the power of grassroots, local organizing. Under his stewardship, Education Austin—affiliated with both Texas AFT and the Texas State Teachers Association—has won major victories: securing districtwide pay raises, defending safe and manageable working conditions, and advancing inclusive policies for LGBTQ and immigrant communities. Through DACA clinics, citizenship drives, and coalition-building at the Capitol, he has stood unwaveringly for justice and public education.
Ken is also a single father of three, one of whom he still cares for at home. His children—who love him deeply—are doing their best to support one another as he fights to heal. In addition to the emotional toll, the family faces enormous financial pressures. Helping his children manage daily life and covering the costs of ongoing medical treatment will require all the community support we can offer.
If you’ve ever been moved by Ken’s work—or if you believe in the kind of community-rooted, fearless leadership he represents—please consider contributing to support his recovery and his family during this extraordinarily difficult time.
Let us now stand for the person who has stood for so many of us. Your support—whether through donations, sharing the campaign, or lifting Ken and his family in your thoughts—can make all the difference.
I’m also honored to share a powerful story by Brant Bingamon in The Austin Chronicle on Ken and Education Austin’s incredible legacy of advocacy and transformation in our schools. Ken, we love you and need you to get well and be well more than ever! 💗
Education Austin’s leader Ken Zarifis speaks in 2023 (photo by Jana Birchum)
Ken Zarifis remembers when Education Austin, the union representing Austin’s public school teachers and staff, first began to push Austin ISD’s board of trustees. It was 2011 and AISD was considering whether to allow a charter school to take over Allan Elementary on the city’s Eastside.
The plan was for the IDEA charter school to begin with Allan Elementary, then take over Martin Middle School, and, eventually, former Johnston High School, to bring up the schools’ test scores. Public school supporters were furious. Zarifis went to the school board trustee representing his neighborhood and asked her to oppose the plan. Zarifis and other members of Education Austin filled the board of trustees’ public meeting on the night of the vote to speak against it. The trustees still approved the takeover 6-3.
“I’ll never forget it,” Zarifis said. “We started chanting, 'We will vote you out! We will vote you out!’ We went outside, we were all in this big circle, and we said, 'We have to start looking for people to flip the board, for candidates.’ By February, we’d found four people.”
Three of the four – Gina Hinojosa, Jayme Mathias, and Ann Teich – won their elections the next fall, flipping the board against the takeover. At their first meeting in December of 2012, the trustees canceled the district’s contract with IDEA. The takeover of Allan Elementary lasted four months. “It’s all about local. That’s all that matters to me. I can’t do a damn thing about national stuff, but I can do a lot locally and that’s what I lean into.”– Education Austin’s Ken Zarifis
“I’d never seen electoral politics work in such a local and direct fashion,” Zarifis said. “They terminated it on the first night that they were all sitting there. You suddenly see: We’ve got power.”
That wasn’t always the case for Education Austin, which has been celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. Zarifis’ predecessor, Louis Malfaro, who served as the organization’s president starting in 1999, when the Austin Federation of Teachers and Austin Association of Teachers merged to create EA, said the board of trustees was not necessarily a progressive body during his tenure, that the union needed to assert its power. “We used to be nothing,” Malfaro said. “The teachers in the city, we didn’t run the show. West Austin ran the show. The Chamber of Commerce ran the show.”
It’s been different since the IDEA charter school fight. Zarifis estimates that the union’s preferred candidates have only lost two or three of the trustee races in which the union has endorsed since 2012. All nine of the current trustees were endorsed by the union. District leaders consult with Education Austin so often that it is almost an arm of the district itself. “Ken’s like the 10th school board member,” Malfaro said.
Education Austin has used that influence to fight for districtwide pay increases for teachers and staff, reduced workloads, shared decision-making, and safe working conditions. “They’ve been very successful in advocating for raises for teachers and classified staff,” Ann Teich said. “They’ve also been very successful in advocating for a workday that is manageable – you know, a duty-free lunch and that kind of thing, something I always appreciated when I was a teacher. They’ve also been successful in advocating at the Legislature to some degree.”
Morgan Craven remembers partnering with Education Austin at the state Capitol in 2017. Craven, who at the time was working for the social justice nonprofit Texas Appleseed, had seen federal data showing that young students, disproportionately black children and those with disabilities, were being suspended from school at rates higher than other kids. She wanted to change state law to limit the suspensions.
Craven had no background in education so Zarifis introduced her to his community. “He was like, 'Okay, we’re doing this – let’s do it,’” Craven said. “He got teachers involved in the advocacy. We were working with young people in the advocacy. We were working directly with the district in the advocacy. And I don’t know if that was on his agenda, to suddenly devote this much time to this particular issue, but he just jumped into it.” The advocates got a law passed to limit out-of-school suspensions for young students. The reform was undone this session with the approval of House Bill 6, which once again makes it easier for teachers to suspend students.
“We used to be nothing. The teachers in the city, we didn’t run the show.”– Former Education Austin President Louis Malfaro
Louis Malfaro back in 2010 (Photo by John Anderson)
Education Austin’s vice president Trasell Underwood remembers the leaders who put it on the map, starting with Malfaro, who worked out a consultation agreement with the district allowing the union to discuss wages and working conditions. She praised other EA leaders who recognized the power that would come from merging the previous unions into one entity. She recalled how former VP Montserrat Garibay helped Education Austin organize DACA clinics and citizenship drives, where families sat down with attorneys to begin the process of becoming citizens. She said it was members of the union who pushed the district to support its LGBTQ workers and students by participating in Pride celebrations. “It was Education Austin that went to the district and forced the conversation,” she said.
Zarifis joined the union soon after taking a job as an English teacher at Burnet Middle School in 1998. Today, the school is threatened with a charter school takeover, just like Allan Elementary was in 2012. The state of Texas, through the Texas Education Agency, is forcing AISD to replace the leadership and about half the teachers at Burnet, Webb, and Dobie middle schools in an effort to improve the schools’ test scores. If the scores don’t come up by December, the schools will be handed to charter school management, starting in 2026. The district is planning to close and consolidate other schools.
It’s a crisis that Education Austin has repeatedly confronted during Zarifis’ tenure as president. In 2012, the union partnered with Gina Hinojosa, who had just been elected president of the AISD board of trustees, to save Johnston High School from being closed. (The school was renamed Eastside Early College High School in 2008.)
“I met with Education Austin and other community advocates every week for that whole school year, working to make sure we were on top of ensuring that school would stay open,” said Hinojosa, now a state representative. “At the high school graduation ceremony, the TEA commissioner announced they had met accountability standards. It was just the coolest community effort when it succeeded. But Education Austin was there and that’s how I knew they were a reliable ally and partner.”
Zarifis stresses that it is the union’s focus on local organizing that has made it effective in a state that is adamantly anti-union. “It’s all about local,” Zarifis said. “That’s all that matters to me. I can’t do a damn thing about national stuff, but I can do a lot locally and that’s what I lean into. Most of the stuff that impacts our lives day-to-day happens locally – what the City Council does, what the school board does.”
Zarifis said this is one of the things he loves about public education – that ultimately it’s a grassroots, community-led enterprise. “It’s the most glorious thing. There’s no institution that’s more magnificent, as flawed as as our public school system is, in creating the future, every bit of it. Show me one other institution that’s creating the future. That’s like magic shit. It’s so otherworldly, but it’s hard work. It’s not like a magic-wand kind of magic. It’s hard-work magic.”
What’s unfolding in Texas, as reported by Nicholas Riccardi and Nadia Lathan (2025) for AP News, is yet another brazen power grab—this time through mid-decade redistricting at the urging of Donald Trump as contained in a directive from the Department of Justice that then showed up in Governor Abbott's special called legislative session (Abbott, 2025).
With a special legislative session underway for a short total of 30 days, Texas Republicans are preparing to redraw congressional maps in a high-stakes maneuver to secure five additional GOP seats. Districts like that of Rep. Vicente Gonzalez in the Rio Grande Valley are in the crosshairs. But let’s be clear: this is not about fair representation—it’s about gerrymandering political lines to entrench power.
The risks, as Riccardi and Lathan highlight, are both political and legal. In seeking to scatter Democratic voters and weaken the voting strength of communities of color, Texas Republicans are not only courting so-called “dummymanders,” but also opening themselves to renewed legal challenges under the Voting Rights Act. We’ve seen these tactics before—pack, crack, divide, and conquer. But history reminds us that such strategies, while harmful, can also ignite grassroots resistance—an ever-present source of hope, no doubt.
That said, based on a long record of gerrymandering in our state, the greatest risk will be borne by our Black and Brown communities who pay taxes like everybody else, but who have not and will not be able to elect the candidate of their choice. After all, redistricting is about incumbents picking their voters rather than voters picking their candidates for office. This was expressed throughout the entire hearing on redistricting that I participated in last Thursday (Valenzuela, 2025).
I testified before this politically motivated redistricting committee, calling out the entire process as a weapon of mass distraction and that their focus should be on the ecological and infrastructure crises before us, "exclusively," I said.
I do like what I'm seeing, including a well-attended, last-minute rally yesterday evening at the Delco Center where an excited audience, myself included, got to hear powerful presentations by Rep. Gina Hinojosa, Rep. James Talarico, Congressman Gregory Casar, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, Congressman Joaquin Castro, and Beto O'Rourke. We are not lacking in very talented Democratic Party leadership in Texas. Quite the opposite.
What we do need is folks to educate themselves quickly on what redistricting consists of and how the outcome is so vital to our democracy. What will ultimately resolve all of this is for folks to get out and vote these officials out of office. It's crazy to see the lengths they'll go to please Donald Trump—like lemmings going over a cliff. I'll continue posting on this as much as I can. You can view the total hearing at Valenzuela (2025).
Texas Democrats, once again, are contemplating a walkout—echoing the defiant stand they took in 2021. The stakes could not be higher—not just for the 2026 midterms, but for the very integrity of democracy both in Texas and the nation. The future of this state cannot, and must not, be redrawn in secret, behind closed doors.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — U.S. Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat who represents a slice of the Rio Grande Valley along the border with Mexico, won his last congressional election by just over 5,000 votes.
That makes him a tempting target for Republicans, who are poised to redraw the state’s congressional maps this coming week and devise five new winnable seats for the GOP that would help the party avoid losing House control in the 2026 elections. Adjusting the lines of Gonzalez’s district to bring in a few thousand more Republican voters, while shifting some Democratic ones out, could flip his seat.
Gonzalez said he is not worried. Those Democratic voters will have to end up in one of the Republican districts that flank Gonzalez’s current one, making those districts more competitive — possibly enough so it could flip the seats to Democrats.
“Get ready for some pickup opportunities,” Gonzalez said, adding that his party is already recruiting challengers to Republicans whose districts they expect to be destabilized by the process. “We’re talking to some veterans, we’re talking to some former law enforcement.”
Texas has 38 seats in the House. Republicans now hold 25 and Democrats 12, with one seat vacant after Democrat Sylvester Turner, a former Houston mayor, died in March.
Gonzalez’s district — and what happens to the neighboring GOP-held ones — is at the crux of President Donald Trump’s high-risk, high-reward push to get Texas Republicans to redraw their political map. Trump is seeking to avoid the traditional midterm letdown that most incumbent presidents endure and hold onto the House, which the GOP narrowly controls.
Republicans risk putting their own seats in jeopardy
The fear of accidentally creating unsafe seats is one reason Texas Republicans drew their lines cautiously in 2021, when the constitutionally mandated redistricting process kicked off in all 50 states. Mapmakers — in most states, it’s the party that controls the legislature — must adjust congressional and state legislative lines after every 10-year census to ensure that districts have about the same number of residents.
That is a golden opportunity for one party to rig the map against the other, a tactic known as gerrymandering. But there is a term, too, for so aggressively redrawing a map that it puts that party’s own seats at risk: a “dummymander.”
The Texas GOP knows the risk. In the 2010s, the Republican-controlled Legislature drew political lines that helped pad the GOP’s House majority. That lasted until 2018, when a backlash against Trump in his first term led Democrats to flip two seats in Texas that Republicans had thought safe.
In 2021, with Republicans still comfortably in charge of the Texas Statehouse, the party was cautious, opting for a map that mainly shored up their incumbents rather than targeted Democrats.
Still, plenty of Republicans believe their Texas counterparts can safely go on offense.
“Smart map-drawing can yield pickup opportunities while not putting our incumbents in jeopardy,” said Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which helps coordinate mapmaking for the party nationally..
Democrats contemplate a walkout
Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session of the Legislature, which starts Monday, to comply with Trump’s request to redraw the congressional maps and to address the flooding in Texas Hill Country that killed at least 135 people this month.
Democratic state lawmakers are talking about staying away from the Capitol to deny the Legislature the minimum number needed to convene. Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton posted that any Democrats who did that should be arrested.
Lawmakers can be fined up to $500 a day for breaking a quorum after the House changed its rules when Democrats initiated a walkout in 2021. Despite the new penalties, state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who led the walkout in 2021, left open the possibility of another.
“I don’t think anybody should underestimate the will of Texas Democrats,” he said.
Texas is not the only Republican state engaged in mid-decade redistricting. After staving off a ballot measure to expand the power of a mapmaking commission last election, Ohio Republicans hope to redraw their congressional map from a 10-5 one favoring the GOP to one as lopsided as 13-2, in a state Trump won last year with 55% of the vote.
GOP sees momentum after 2024 presidential election
Some Democratic leaders have suggested that states where their party is in control should counter the expected redraw in Texas. “We have to be absolutely ruthless about getting back in power,” former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said Sunday on CNN.
But Democrats have fewer options. More of the states the party controls do not allow elected partisans to draw maps and entrust independent commissions to draw fair lines.
The few Democratic-controlled states that do allow elected officials to draw the lines, such as Illinois, have already seen Democrats max out their advantages.
Trump and his allies have been rallying Texas Republicans to ignore whatever fears they may have and to go big.
On Tuesday, the president posted on his social media site a reminder of his record in the state last November: “Won by one and a half million Votes, and almost 14%. Also, won all of the Border Counties along Mexico, something which has never happened before. I keep hearing about Texas ‘going Blue,’ but it is just another Democrat LIE.”
Texas has long been eyed as a state trending Democratic because of its growing nonwhite population. But those communities swung right last year and helped Trump expand his margin to 14 percentage points, a significant improvement on his 6-point win in 2020.
Michael Li, a Texas native and longtime watcher of the state at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York, said there’s no way to know whether that trend will continue in next year’s elections or whether the state will return to its blue-trending ways.
“Anyone who can tell you what the politics of Texas looks like for the balance of the decade has a better crystal ball than I do,” Li said. Aggressive redistricting also carries legal risks
One region of the state where Republican gains have been steady is the Rio Grande Valley, which runs from the Gulf of Mexico along much of the state’s southern border. The heavily Hispanic region, where many Border Patrol officers live, has rallied around Trump’s tough-on-immigration, populist message.
As a result, Gonzalez and the area’s other Democratic congressman, Henry Cuellar, have seen their reelection campaigns get steadily tighter. They are widely speculated to be the two top targets of the new map.
The GOP is expected to look to the state’s three biggest cities to find its other Democratic targets. If mapmakers scatter Democratic voters from districts in the Houston, Dallas and Austin areas, they could get to five additional seats.
But in doing so, Republicans face a legal risk on top of their electoral one: that they break up districts required by the Voting Rights Act to have a critical amount of certain minority groups. The goal of the federal law is to enable those communities to elect representatives of their choosing.
The Texas GOP already is facing a lawsuit from civil rights groups alleging its initial 2021 map did this. If this year’s redistricting is too aggressive, it could trigger a second complaint.
“It’s politically and legally risky,” Li said of the redistricting strategy. “It’s throwing caution to the winds.”
/ unicornisland
Follow Nikhil: https://www.instagram.com/tanejamainh...
Follow Lilly: 
